Well I don't see why saying "large-vendor" must apply to M$ all the time.
Neither do I. But I am sure that no matter what large vendor you speak of, they have released buggy products. One particular recent incident with an IBM ATM switch (MSS) microcode release (a "stable" release) comes to mind. The company where I work were advised to upgrade to this latest release; a week later we were downgrading because of the huge network performance problems it caused. IBM withdrew the microcode release.
I'm sure other/.'ers can come up with other examples. Large vendor != thorough testing.
The vast majority of Free Software advocates are exactly that - advocates. They aren't developing code, they aren't reading the source to make improvements.
Do you think that creating code under a Free Software license is not a high form of advocacy?
Free Software isn't about anything philosophical. It's about software and being able to share it to build upon itself. After that, it doesn't matter.
That's what we call an oxymoron. Whenever you say "It's about" then you are in the realm of philosophy.
Aside from some work in the HURD, RMS isn't a software developer anymore. He has become a philosopher, trying like Socrates to convert others to his way of thinking.
I didn't think RMS worked on the HURD, I could be wrong. Socrates was a teacher. Anyone who has an idea they feel will help their common man has a duty to try and convert others.
The coders have the right to make the names and use them however they please. The philosophers are only being hypocritical by making any attempt at changing that.
Linux called his kernel Linus. The "philosophers" have never tried to change that. They want they operating system based on the Linux kernel, which includes a myriad of other software packages, to be called GNU/Linux.
And hypocritical in what way?
Linux doesn't owe GNU anything. The GNU project gave Linux a tiny stepladder. But Linux gave GNU a Saturn V Rocket.
Who knows. Personally, I think we have to thank the creators of the copper wire along which the bits flow. It's more complicate than "Linux helped GNU! GNU was a loser before Linux!". Much more complicated.
I agree. Without the GPL, Linux would not be where it is today. Imagine Linux under a BSD license. Why not just run BSD?
Alan Cox is far more positive in his defence of the GPL. I read the linux-kernel mailing lists (mostly courtesy of the nice abridgement with commentary to be found at Kernal Cousins) and Linus rarely talks about licenses. Perhaps he does see the value of his early choice, but he doesn't shout about it.
But the point was, sometimes you need to argue, sometimes you need to know what's the best thing to do before you just get it done.
Torvalds has his place, as a first class engineer and leader of engineers. Stallman has his place as a first class visionary. Sometimes his presentation gets screwed up but that's because he assumes his audience are reasonably intelligent, which they frequently are not. That is not meant as an attack on you.
I really don't think a person as non-political as Torvalds would try and hide message in the case of someone's abbreviated name / login.
Re:So he annoys the faithful by proving himself mo
on
Torvalds Tells All
·
· Score: 2
Maybe a few people here could take a lesson from his interview. Then, maybe you might know what it is all about.
I agree with the rest of your post. As far as the above sentence is concerned, well, Linux is about different things for different people. Torvalds is the progenitor and lead developer. That doesn't mean no-one else gets an opinion if they disagree with him.
An economic unit's profit can only come from selling (exports, in the case of a nation) or theft (slavery, collonialism). Isolationism is not a growth-enabling attitude. If MS pulled out of Europe, jobs in the US would be lost (and in Europe too... MS do have overseas offices and labs).
What you describe is like the current Debian branch model, which seems to work very well.
If stability is your highest priority, you stick to the stable release, which is pretty much guaranteed uptime. So it's good for important servers. Can get out-of-date quickly, though, depending on your needs.
For desktops and less mission-critical servers, the testing release suits. Get the (almost) latest software, and retain a good level of stability.
Developers and masochists get to play with the unstable release.
For me, I try to walk a path that maximises my own joy and satisfaction, while not changing your happiness (in the worst case), and increasing yours as well, (in the best).
Sounds good, and I tend towards a similar line of thought myself. But, what do you do, when another person's pursuit of happiness blights your own joy and satisfaction? What if that person simply does not see how you are affected? Who draws the golden standard?
And who is the 'you'? Do I get to choose who counts in this formula for success? Do the 'lower' animals get to pursue happiness, or can they be sacrificed at the alter of joy? What of the humans who's joy derives from apparent cruelty (though perhaps not directly to other humans)? Who calls these judgement shots?
The majority? Usually. Why? Utilitarianism - it's easier just to keep most people happy.
The word I believe you wanted was immoral, which means contrary to morals, or wrong.
Amoral means 'without morals' or 'untouched by morals'. An amoral act is one which cannot be judged in a moral sense. An amoral person refuses to belive in the existence of right and wrong. That does not mean they spend there time doing immoral acts. One can exemplify virtue (in the eyes of others) whilst remaining steadfastly amoral.
To correct your language here is a moral act. Please forgive me if any offence is taken, as only the best of wishes are intended.
You're argument is fine for an evolutionary biologist. It is way off the mark for a philosopher, which is what you claim to be when you talk about absolute rights and wrongs.
The rights and wrongs, which most likely are built into our species for survival, are most certainly not absolute in the philosophical sense, which is the generally accepted sense when one talks about whether rights and wrongs are absolute or relative, unless you accept divine inspiration, which I don't think is your case. Hence why so many people have sought to put you right on the matter.
In the philosophical sense of absolute, the origin must be external to the human race. Otherwise, any definition of right or wrong must be relative to some aspect of the human race, and is therefore not absolute. This is the common understanding of the words you have used.
I don't think there is a fundamental disagreement, save in the terms of the debate, where you have chosen to sail your own course, thus hindering communication.
Firstly, everything is relative. Even if I give you absolute co-ordinates, they are really relative to an origin.
Secondly, even if we ignore the general relativity (see Einstein) of the absolute, right and wrong are still most definitely relative.
For something to be absolute, it must be derived from an origin. I presume you agree with this basic, simple fact. The following is one possible path of reasoning from this simple fact. Replace the details with your own and show me a different (logical) conclusion.
Let's take slavery. Why is slavery an absolute wrong? We have to find the origin of this 'absolute' wrongness. So let's try. Perhaps it's because it's wrong to deprive another man of his freedom when he's done else that's wrong.
So, why? Why is it wrong to deprive a man of his freedom? Perhaps it's wrong because doing so makes a man rise up against the society who denies him.
So, why? Why is it wrong to cause a man to rise up against society? Is it because this endanger society?
But then, why is it wrong to endanger society? Is it because society supports the human race, and makes it more likely to survive?
Perhaps. But still, this can't be the origin. Can it? Does everything boil down to the survival of the human race (personally I don't think so)? So, why? Why is it wrong to threaten the survival of the human race?
Is it because life is sacred? If so, who says? God? Darwin? But what makes it wrong?
I don't know how you can compare circumstantial evidence with DNA. DNA found on a murder weapon is surely direct evidence, not curcumstantial. The reliability of circumstial evidence is to be found in obtaining a conviction, whether true or false, but not in achieving justice. IANAL, thank god.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I don't see why saying "large-vendor" must apply to M$ all the time.
/.'ers can come up with other examples. Large vendor != thorough testing.
Neither do I. But I am sure that no matter what large vendor you speak of, they have released buggy products. One particular recent incident with an IBM ATM switch (MSS) microcode release (a "stable" release) comes to mind. The company where I work were advised to upgrade to this latest release; a week later we were downgrading because of the huge network performance problems it caused. IBM withdrew the microcode release.
I'm sure other
My definition of a stable kernel is one that has been handed over to the stable kernel maintainer, Alan Cox.
The stable kernel has become ready for production usage once development has started somewhere else.
May I recommend this attitude to people who complain about the instability of the 2.4 series. It's called pragmatism.
What on earth are you on about?
Go on then. Which one are YOU speaking of?
I could agree more!
Well, actually I couldn't.
There are many annoying usages in American English which just don't make sense when you actually examine the semantics of the words.
Take the previous sentence, for example; I often see the words "just" and "don't" reversed in similar contexts, reversing the meaning unintentionally.
This, again, is a Merkin thing.
Actually, look at this:
Torvalds says "Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did."
(I've posted this elsewhere, but I want you to see it in your "Your Info" page)
Actually, look at this:
Torvalds says "Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did."
I was going to say: "You're a rarity! A troll posting at +2!" but it's not rare at all.
The vast majority of Free Software advocates are exactly that - advocates. They aren't developing code, they aren't reading the source to make improvements.
Do you think that creating code under a Free Software license is not a high form of advocacy?
Free Software isn't about anything philosophical. It's about software and being able to share it to build upon itself. After that, it doesn't matter.
That's what we call an oxymoron. Whenever you say "It's about" then you are in the realm of philosophy.
Aside from some work in the HURD, RMS isn't a software developer anymore. He has become a philosopher, trying like Socrates to convert others to his way of thinking.
I didn't think RMS worked on the HURD, I could be wrong. Socrates was a teacher. Anyone who has an idea they feel will help their common man has a duty to try and convert others.
The coders have the right to make the names and use them however they please. The philosophers are only being hypocritical by making any attempt at changing that.
Linux called his kernel Linus. The "philosophers" have never tried to change that. They want they operating system based on the Linux kernel, which includes a myriad of other software packages, to be called GNU/Linux.
And hypocritical in what way?
Linux doesn't owe GNU anything. The GNU project gave Linux a tiny stepladder. But Linux gave GNU a Saturn V Rocket.
Who knows. Personally, I think we have to thank the creators of the copper wire along which the bits flow. It's more complicate than "Linux helped GNU! GNU was a loser before Linux!". Much more complicated.
I agree. Without the GPL, Linux would not be where it is today. Imagine Linux under a BSD license. Why not just run BSD?
Alan Cox is far more positive in his defence of the GPL. I read the linux-kernel mailing lists (mostly courtesy of the nice abridgement with commentary to be found at Kernal Cousins) and Linus rarely talks about licenses. Perhaps he does see the value of his early choice, but he doesn't shout about it.
But the point was, sometimes you need to argue, sometimes you need to know what's the best thing to do before you just get it done.
Torvalds has his place, as a first class engineer and leader of engineers. Stallman has his place as a first class visionary. Sometimes his presentation gets screwed up but that's because he assumes his audience are reasonably intelligent, which they frequently are not. That is not meant as an attack on you.
I really don't think a person as non-political as Torvalds would try and hide message in the case of someone's abbreviated name / login.
Maybe a few people here could take a lesson from his interview. Then, maybe you might know what it is all about.
I agree with the rest of your post. As far as the above sentence is concerned, well, Linux is about different things for different people. Torvalds is the progenitor and lead developer. That doesn't mean no-one else gets an opinion if they disagree with him.
An economic unit's profit can only come from selling (exports, in the case of a nation) or theft (slavery, collonialism). Isolationism is not a growth-enabling attitude. If MS pulled out of Europe, jobs in the US would be lost (and in Europe too... MS do have overseas offices and labs).
What you describe is like the current Debian branch model, which seems to work very well.
If stability is your highest priority, you stick to the stable release, which is pretty much guaranteed uptime. So it's good for important servers. Can get out-of-date quickly, though, depending on your needs.
For desktops and less mission-critical servers, the testing release suits. Get the (almost) latest software, and retain a good level of stability.
Developers and masochists get to play with the unstable release.
Could be a good idea.
...and charge twice as much!
There are afterall a number of small but nontrivial groups that hold that sex with a holy man or woman erases sin.
Sounds like they are on to a good thing. Where do I sign up for the priesthood?
For me, I try to walk a path that maximises my own joy and satisfaction, while not changing your happiness (in the worst case), and increasing yours as well, (in the best).
Sounds good, and I tend towards a similar line of thought myself. But, what do you do, when another person's pursuit of happiness blights your own joy and satisfaction? What if that person simply does not see how you are affected? Who draws the golden standard?
And who is the 'you'? Do I get to choose who counts in this formula for success? Do the 'lower' animals get to pursue happiness, or can they be sacrificed at the alter of joy? What of the humans who's joy derives from apparent cruelty (though perhaps not directly to other humans)? Who calls these judgement shots?
The majority? Usually. Why? Utilitarianism - it's easier just to keep most people happy.
The word I believe you wanted was immoral, which means contrary to morals, or wrong.
Amoral means 'without morals' or 'untouched by morals'. An amoral act is one which cannot be judged in a moral sense. An amoral person refuses to belive in the existence of right and wrong. That does not mean they spend there time doing immoral acts. One can exemplify virtue (in the eyes of others) whilst remaining steadfastly amoral.
To correct your language here is a moral act. Please forgive me if any offence is taken, as only the best of wishes are intended.
You're argument is fine for an evolutionary biologist. It is way off the mark for a philosopher, which is what you claim to be when you talk about absolute rights and wrongs.
The rights and wrongs, which most likely are built into our species for survival, are most certainly not absolute in the philosophical sense, which is the generally accepted sense when one talks about whether rights and wrongs are absolute or relative, unless you accept divine inspiration, which I don't think is your case. Hence why so many people have sought to put you right on the matter.
In the philosophical sense of absolute, the origin must be external to the human race. Otherwise, any definition of right or wrong must be relative to some aspect of the human race, and is therefore not absolute. This is the common understanding of the words you have used.
I don't think there is a fundamental disagreement, save in the terms of the debate, where you have chosen to sail your own course, thus hindering communication.
Firstly, everything is relative. Even if I give you absolute co-ordinates, they are really relative to an origin.
Secondly, even if we ignore the general relativity (see Einstein) of the absolute, right and wrong are still most definitely relative.
For something to be absolute, it must be derived from an origin. I presume you agree with this basic, simple fact. The following is one possible path of reasoning from this simple fact. Replace the details with your own and show me a different (logical) conclusion.
Let's take slavery. Why is slavery an absolute wrong? We have to find the origin of this 'absolute' wrongness. So let's try. Perhaps it's because it's wrong to deprive another man of his freedom when he's done else that's wrong.
So, why? Why is it wrong to deprive a man of his freedom? Perhaps it's wrong because doing so makes a man rise up against the society who denies him.
So, why? Why is it wrong to cause a man to rise up against society? Is it because this endanger society?
But then, why is it wrong to endanger society? Is it because society supports the human race, and makes it more likely to survive?
Perhaps. But still, this can't be the origin. Can it? Does everything boil down to the survival of the human race (personally I don't think so)? So, why? Why is it wrong to threaten the survival of the human race?
Is it because life is sacred? If so, who says? God? Darwin? But what makes it wrong?
Why, realitymaster, why?
Any chance of seeing the list of rights granted by the 'creator'? And, of course, evidence of it's source.
Surely this is something that could be worked out with Yodiaken or simply ignored? Sheesh!
And you call yourself a lawyer? Sheesh!
(IANAL).
I don't think I said that. Do you?
I was not aware of that, and it makes me worried.
I don't know how you can compare circumstantial evidence with DNA. DNA found on a murder weapon is surely direct evidence, not curcumstantial. The reliability of circumstial evidence is to be found in obtaining a conviction, whether true or false, but not in achieving justice. IANAL, thank god.